Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Seconded, about Topping, it's just not conclusive for researchers in general, and where is he in 1888?
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
      Seconded, about Topping, it's just not conclusive for researchers in general, and where is he in 1888?
      Unfortunately, we don't have a yearly census, so we can't be definitive about most people's whereabouts all the time - Toppy included. However, I do know that someone was using his name and signature on a certain witness statement on 12th November 1888, and that he was resident in Spitalfields at the time.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Yes, sorry that last bit was a little rhetorical.
        Where was he in 1891, or 81 for that matter, and what was he doing?

        I'm inclined to accept the signature evidence in the same way as yourself, though I'm not so convinced that I would argue the case. I'd like to know more about him before that.

        What about the rest of the story, this time from his son Reg. that Toppy thought it was a royal conspiracy, and that he was paid a hundred shillings, by whom & for what the book does not say.
        Those details seem to be a bit of a stretch for me.

        Ah, "Topping" was his mother's maiden name, I wondered what that name referred to.
        Last edited by Wickerman; 08-26-2018, 03:05 PM.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          Yes, sorry that last bit was a little rhetorical.
          Where was he in 1891, or 81 for that matter, and what was he doing?

          I'm inclined to accept the signature evidence in the same way as yourself, though I'm not so convinced that I would argue the case. I'd like to know more about him before that.

          What about the rest of the story, this time from his son Reg. that Toppy thought it was a royal conspiracy, and that he was paid a hundred shillings, by whom & for what the book does not say.
          Those details seem to be a bit of a stretch for me.

          Ah, "Topping" was his mother's maiden name, I wondered what that name referred to.
          A few years back, Edward Stow traced his tracks, and the result - which should give you a fair picture of his moves - is found here:

          https://forum.casebook.org/archive/i...hp/t-6036.html

          Comment


          • Good morning Fisherman.
            Excellent research, and discussion [ have not come across this before]
            Reg , and Arthur Hutchinson's father, was born Sept/October 1866, making this person of interest twenty two years of age in 1888.
            He and only he I consider to have been the witness Hutchinson.
            My claim [ now backed up] was that a radio programme was aired in the early-mid 1970's, and I informed Casebook many years ago, that it was called ''The man that saw jack'' and featured the son of the witness Hutchinson.
            As the tale was identical to what was relayed in the publication ''The Ripper , and the Royals''[ 1992] we can safely say, the son which featured on the broadcast was one Reg Hutchinson. son of Topping.
            I have mentioned many times that only the real witness , would have known about the payment of £5, as it was not featured in any national newspaper, and indeed only came to light in this century, from a rare publication ''The Wheeling Register'' which is unlikely to have been seen by George William Topping, for him to have incorporated into his account..
            I have heard that Toppings Grandson, indeed relates to a 1970's radio broadcast.
            My insistence is purely to attempt to identify the witness known as Hutchinson, and to clarify that this account was not invented for the publication. as what was written there was news to Ripperology , but not to myself who heard the original broadcast , it was not a revelation to me.
            Also my insistence from a personal level , is to satisfy myself and doubters , that I am not suffering from false memory.
            Regards Richard.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
              Good morning Fisherman.
              Excellent research, and discussion [ have not come across this before]
              Reg , and Arthur Hutchinson's father, was born Sept/October 1866, making this person of interest twenty two years of age in 1888.
              He and only he I consider to have been the witness Hutchinson.
              My claim [ now backed up] was that a radio programme was aired in the early-mid 1970's, and I informed Casebook many years ago, that it was called ''The man that saw jack'' and featured the son of the witness Hutchinson.
              As the tale was identical to what was relayed in the publication ''The Ripper , and the Royals''[ 1992] we can safely say, the son which featured on the broadcast was one Reg Hutchinson. son of Topping.
              I have mentioned many times that only the real witness , would have known about the payment of £5, as it was not featured in any national newspaper, and indeed only came to light in this century, from a rare publication ''The Wheeling Register'' which is unlikely to have been seen by George William Topping, for him to have incorporated into his account..
              I have heard that Toppings Grandson, indeed relates to a 1970's radio broadcast.
              My insistence is purely to attempt to identify the witness known as Hutchinson, and to clarify that this account was not invented for the publication. as what was written there was news to Ripperology , but not to myself who heard the original broadcast , it was not a revelation to me.
              Also my insistence from a personal level , is to satisfy myself and doubters , that I am not suffering from false memory.
              Regards Richard.
              Well, Richard, radio show or no radio show, I have no doubt that the witness was Topping. Glad you enjoyed the thread - it is excellent research, just as you say.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                A few years back, Edward Stow traced his tracks, and the result - which should give you a fair picture of his moves - is found here:

                https://forum.casebook.org/archive/i...hp/t-6036.html
                Very impressive research from a researcher for whom Toppy is presumably little more than a diversion from his main area of interest.

                Can't wait to see the headline act when it appears in book form.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  Very impressive research from a researcher for whom Toppy is presumably little more than a diversion from his main area of interest.

                  Can't wait to see the headline act when it appears in book form.
                  That makes two of us, Gary.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    Did Dew write something that was not published in the press?

                    You tell me? I have simply quoted from his book when the question arose as to whether or nor he attended Millers Court

                    This is the interview where Reid claimed that the same hand was responsible for nine murders, and that the killer was not seen by any witness, so they never had a description of the killer.
                    And this, only eight years after the murders.
                    Yes and the front sheet of official Scotland Yard Whitechapel Murders file lists nine murders, so I would suggest that someone, or many in authority perhaps at the time believed the killer may have carried out nine murders.

                    He is also correct that no one ever saw the killer of any of the women.

                    So what point are you trying to prove?

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                      Bit confused here, Varqm.

                      Why would Hutchinson have been asked any of these questions if he didn’t mention Lewis?
                      I do not understand.Just read Lewis's and Hutch;s testimony and police putting 2 and 2 together.If asked and he said he did not see the woman he is lying,end of story.If they did not ask their questioning was lacking.Based on the timings Hutch was the man Lewis saw,plus Hutch said he saw no one else so it must have been him,he was the only one standing there. The lodging house man and the policeman were farther away.He could not have missed encountering the woman.
                      If he said he did saw the woman then they ask him those questions to test him.Plus ask the people from his previous workplace(s) what was Hutchinson like?Ask the same question to the lodging residents or some and the lodging house deputy where he lived.Check his prison/court/conviction records.All these "checks" to be surer this witness could be trusted and to not waste time,weeks/months chasing a lead that does not exist,and if he could be trusted then they got a good witness.Without the checks above it was incomplete.
                      Abberline's letter,his basis for his opinion Hutch was "truthful" was far away,not enough checks,too soon, from knowing if Hutch could be trusted and cannot be used as a basis that Hutch was truthful.It did not even mention "more checks will be done."
                      But it was also right to start the investigation immediately just in case it was true while it was still "hot" ,which probably was one of the purposes of the letter or also an update.

                      ---
                      Last edited by Varqm; 08-27-2018, 09:52 AM.
                      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                      M. Pacana

                      Comment


                      • If I was the witness (Hutch) I'll easily testify I saw a woman.Nothing to hide.And if a dog passed by I would also include that in the testimony. "I saw a dog passed by a few minutes after the woman went into the court,I called it Chewy,Spotty,it did not respond".

                        ---
                        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                        M. Pacana

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                          If I was the witness (Hutch) I'll easily testify I saw a woman.Nothing to hide.And if a dog passed by I would also include that in the testimony. "I saw a dog passed by a few minutes after the woman went into the court,I called it Chewy,Spotty,it did not respond".

                          ---
                          Not least since she actually walked right into Millers Court, where Kelly´s dead body was found, and where Hutchinson stood guard outside, would I say that Lewis should have been mentioned! If Hutchinson had reason to remember but one person, it would be her.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            A few years back, Edward Stow traced his tracks, and the result - which should give you a fair picture of his moves - is found here:

                            https://forum.casebook.org/archive/i...hp/t-6036.html
                            Thankyou Christer, funny you should say that. I was on JTRForums yesterday reading Ed's comments on Able Seaman Hutchinson. I found his research interesting.
                            http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....hlight=topping
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                              I do not understand.Just read Lewis's and Hutch;s testimony and police putting 2 and 2 together.If asked and he said he did not see the woman he is lying,end of story.
                              Who would ask?
                              Badham was the one taking the statement, Badham was not at the inquest, so Badham does not know Lewis's story about seeing the loiterer.

                              Abberline was the one to ask the questions, and that record has not survived.
                              It just seems to me you are aiming your objections at the wrong people.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Abberline letter:

                                "and I am of opinion his statement is true";

                                "and he has promised to go with an officer tomorrow morning at 11.30 a.m. to the Shoreditch mortuary to identify the deceased."


                                why was abberline confident when the witness has not identified the body yet? what if it was a different Kelly/woman? Although he was going to
                                an additional "check",witness identifying the body/Kelly,whether this witness was relevant or not.But he got a long way to go,additional checks mentioned in a previous post would have made it surer.

                                ---
                                Last edited by Varqm; 08-27-2018, 01:12 PM.
                                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                                M. Pacana

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X